of which of the two remedies is sought, it is our view that the
three elements outlined above must be established.
(2) The application of the framework
 Here, the first element is satisfied. The judgments in
favour of the client exist. As a chose in action or judgment debt,
those judgments are a property right against which the charge or
lien may attach: Fancy Barristers P.C. v. Morse Shannon, LLP,
 O.J. No. 517, 2017 ONCA 82, at para. 9; Pino v. Vanroon,
 O.J. No. 4354, 28 C.P.C. (4th) 274 (Gen. Div.), at para. 10;
Mpampas v. Steamatic Toronto,  O.J. No. 4724, 2009 CanLII 61417 (S.C.J.), affd  O.J. No. 2099, 2010 ONCA 373.
 The second element is also satisfied. There is no dispute
that the law firm was instrumental in recovering the moneys
owed under the judgments.
 The only branch of this test that is seriously contested is
the third element — whether the evidence supports a finding that
it is likely that the law firm will not be paid what is ultimately
found owing by the client: Taylor, at para. 34.
 The client has paid more than $460,000 in legal fees to the
law firm. This includes payments of $55,000 since January 5,
2016, including a payment of $10,000 on June 7, 2017, only a few
weeks before the appeal was dismissed and the client initiated
 The law firm submits that the client has had financial difficulties in the past that have prevented him from being able to pay
his outstanding accounts. The law firm has rendered 51 accounts
to the client throughout these protracted proceedings. Twelve
remain unpaid. The law firm contends that it has demanded payment of the outstanding amounts owed from the client, but to no
avail. It points to the fact that the client had to refinance his home
in order to pay an earlier account, arguing that it has every reason
to believe that the client cannot or will not pay what it owes the
 The client says that the evidence does not support either
proposition. The client attests to the fact that he has sufficient
liquid assets to pay the law firm the amount the assessment
officer determines should be paid — even if it is the full amount
the law firm says is owing, as set out above. The client says his
willingness to pay can be demonstrated by the regular flow of
payments he has made during the time when the law firm represented him in this matter.
 In our view, the law firm has not discharged its burden of
establishing that it will likely not be paid without a charging
order or lien: see Taylor, at para. 34.